Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21AHCV00151, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21AHCV00151 Hearing Date: February 27, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: February
27, 2023 TRIAL DATE: April 11, 2023
CASE: NANCY
RENAIE JOHNSON v. ALICE J KEY, individually and as Trustee of the Alice J Key
Trust, ALICE J KEY TRUST, ALLISON IRBY-CRAIG, individually and as Trustee of
the Alice J Key Trust, and DOES 1 – 10.
CASE NO.: 21AHCV00151
MOTION
FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL OR AMENDED ANSWER
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Allison
Irby-Craig, individually and as trustee of the Alice J Key Trust
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
Nancy Renaie Johnson
SERVICE: Filed February 2, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed February 14, 2023
REPLY: Filed February 21, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendants move for leave to file a supplemental or amended answer to
Plaintiff’s complaint.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Nancy Renaie Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”)
claims arising from her employment to provide care for Defendant Alice J. Key
(“Key”) at her home. Plaintiff alleges that from June 2016 to November 17,
2021, she was employed to provide care and maintain Key’s household. Plaintiff
alleges that she was required to work 24 hours per day, she was not allowed to
take uninterrupted meal breaks or rest breaks, and that she was misclassified
as an independent contractor.
Plaintiff filed this complaint on
December 15, 2021, alleging seven causes of action against Defendants Alice J.
Key, individually and as Trustee of the Alice J. Key Trust, Alice J Key Trust,
Allison Irby-Craig, individually and as Trustee of the Alice J. Key Trust
(collectively “Defendants”) for (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure
to pay the minimum wage, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to
provide rest periods, (5) waiting time penalties. (6) failure to
indemnify/reimburse and (7) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17200.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants’
motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides in
relevant part: “The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to
the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any
pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an
answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” Trial courts have discretion to permit amendments, which
should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments to promote the judicial
policy to resolve all disputed matters in one lawsuit. (Kittredge
Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045,
1047. “But this policy applies only [w]here no prejudice is shown to
the adverse party.” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007)
151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175, quotation marks omitted.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants seek leave to file a supplemental or amended answer to assert
a defense that Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred because she failed to file a
creditor’s claim within one year of Decedent Alice J. Key’s death on November
17, 2021.
The first issue is whether Defendants’
proposed pleading is a supplement or amendment to a pleading. California Rules
of Court, rule 5.74, subdivision (a)(2) provides: “ ‘Amended
pleading’ means a pleading that completely restates and supersedes the pleading
it amends for all purposes.” In contrast, " ‘[s]upplement to a pleading’
and ‘supplement’ mean a pleading that modifies another pleading but does not
allege facts or request relief materially different from the facts alleged or
the relief requested in the supplemented pleading. A supplement to a pleading
may add information to or may correct omissions in the modified pleading.”
(California Rules of Court, rule 5.74, subdivision (a)(4).)
Here,
Defendants are seeking to assert two new defenses to allege that Plaintiff’s
claims fail for failure to file a probate proceeding and creditor’s claim. Because
Defendants seek to request relief different from the relief previously
asserted, Defendants’ motion is more appropriately analyzed as a motion to file
an amended pleading.
California
Rules of Court Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b), requires a motion to amend a
pleading to include a declaration that provides: “[¶] (1) The effect of the amendment; [¶] (2) Why the amendment is
necessary and proper; [¶] (3) When the
facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and [¶] (4) The reasons why the
request for amendment was not made earlier.”
Defendants provide that the effect of the amendment is to assert
two new affirmative defenses to assert Plaintiff failed to timely file a
probate proceeding and creditor’s claim. (Mines Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants provide that the amendment is
necessary and proper because it covers events that occurred after the time for
filing their previous answer and could not be asserted until after a year had
passed. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendants provide that the defense arose on November
18, 2022, and they did not bring this motion earlier because of the holiday
season between late November and early January. (Id. ¶ 7.) Defendants
also attached a copy of the proposed amended answer. (Id. ¶ 2, Exhibit
1.)
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that
the proposed answer should be disallowed because the amendment would be futile
and Defendants should have elected to provide notice pursuant to the Probate
Code. Plaintiff argues that she was not required to bring a probate case and
that the present lawsuit satisfies any time requirements. The court deems that
the parties’ dispute regarding the present issues would be better addressed in
a motion evaluating the substance of each party’s respective arguments. Because
the present motion is about whether Defendants should be entitled to file an
amended pleading, the court declines to wade into the parties’ debate about
which Probate Code section controls the procedural requirements of Plaintiff’s
claims.
Plaintiff
also argues that the proposed amendment would prejudice her. Plaintiff argues
that the present motion is too close to the date of the trial, which is
currently set for April 11, 2023. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants conduct
merit denying the present motion because Defendants waited 75 days after the apparent
accrual of their defense to raise it and because their counsel failed to appear
for Defendants’ ex parte application to continue the trial date.
“ ‘Generally, “the
trial court has wide discretion in determining whether to allow the amendment,
but the appropriate exercise of that discretion requires the trial court
to consider a number of factors: ‘including the conduct of the moving party and
the belated presentation of the amendment.’ ” ’ ” (Eng v. Brown (2018)
21 Cal.App.5th 675, 706-707.)
The court
recognizes that Defendants could have potentially asserted their claim more
expeditiously and appeared for the initial hearing date for their ex parte
application. However, a 75-day delay and Defendants’ failure to inform
Plaintiff of their intent to raise new defenses during that time span does not
sufficiently establish that Plaintiff will experience undue prejudice to
warrant denying Defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended pleading.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’
motion for leave to file an amended answer is GRANTED.
Defendant is
ordered to file the amended answer with the court and serve a copy on the Plaintiff’s
within 10 days of this order/
Moving party to
provide notice.
Dated: February 27,
2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an
email to the court indicating their